Are Christians Under ANY New Covenant?

The subject of Israel's New Covenant, and the erroneous notion of its relationship to the New Creation Christian and the Body of Christ--the Church, remains a hot topic in dispensational circles. Like the doctrine of the Fall, the subject of the "New Covenant" is a 'watershed' issue in both Christendom and among truly born-again Christians.

Slowly, growing believers are awakening to the serious negative consequences of believing that the Church is the direct, or even indirect, beneficiary of any of God's blessing via Israel's New Covenant. How has this confusion come about?

"People who claim to be serious about the Bible often expend a lot of energy talking about how it needs to be interpreted in context--but then turn around and filter it through their own traditions. The context for correctly understanding the Bible is not the Church Fathers. Biblical theology neither began nor ended with Augustine. It is also not the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation, or modern evangelicalism. Rather, the correct context for interpreting the Bible is the context in which it was produced--the ancient Near East and Mediterranean." Michael Heiser

Church history is vague regarding how the last 27 books of the Canon became labeled as the "New Testament" or "New Covenant." But however it happened, it has misled born-again, evangelical Christians for centuries.

Had you lived in the ancient Near East, in Israel, during the period leading up to the coming of Jesus Christ, how would you have understood the promised "New Covenant"? Hear the words of Professor John W. Cooper, professor of theology at Calvin Theological Seminary (Covenant theology!).

"The Old Testament is resoundingly this-worldly. The fullest possible existence for a human being is to live an earthly life as God created it to be lived. Health, sufficient material goods, enjoyment of marriage and family, meaningful work, standing in the community, freedom from one’s enemies, and above all walking in integrity with the God of the covenant—the Israelite who enjoyed these blessings could exclaim, 'It doesn’t get any better than this!' When the prophets look forward to the eschatological future [New Covenant], they do not envision heaven for the individual. Their hope is for a New Jerusalem and a new earth, a place where the existence of the Lord’s people will again be what it was created to be in the beginning. Human life is tied to the earth."

It was John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), questionably considered by some the "father of dispensationalism", who initiated the major break with the traditions of Covenant theology—a theological system which had dominated since the time of Augustine and the Church Fathers. Darby saw the Church as a body of believers having a unique "heavenly" position, not an extension of God's earthly people, Israel.

Pioneer devotional writer/theologian Miles Stanford (self-identified "Pauline dispensationalist") wrote, "...the Reformed folk can't tolerate Darby, since he has exposed their covenant error better than anyone else. There has been none since Paul who could touch Darby when it comes to getting right at the core of error and laying it bare." Stanford wrote numerous "Position/Polemic Papers" during the decades of the '80s and '90s asserting that the New Covenant of both OT and NT pertained to Israel alone and not the heavenly Church.

It was the American lawyer, C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), who purloined recovered truths from John Darby and created his seven dispensation schema—a mixture which drew heavily upon the covenant "age-ism" of Isaac Watts. Both the history and theological significance of Scofield upon American evangelicalism and his adverse influence upon the dispensational movement is extensively documented by the late Darbyist biographer, Roy A. Huebner (1931-2008). See Dispensational Truth, Volume 1. Huebner wasn't the first to question Scofield's so-called dispensational system and doctrines. American Bible expositor William R. Newell (1868-1956), who wrote the classic Romans: Verse By Verse, also raised several serious questions regarding Scofield's system.

Most recently, the question of whether the Church is, in part or in whole, heir to Israel's New Covenant, has been challenged by several scholars associated with various dispensational seminary and pastorates. In 2013, six men* who consider themselves "dispensational" in the American tradition published An Introduction To The New Covenant, Tyndale Press. This work goes to the heart of the error that has crippled Christianity for nearly two millennia.

*Gary Gilley, David Gunn, Don Trest, Christopher Cone, Charlie Clough, and George Gunn.

Note for Evangelical and Dispensational Historians:

There are many historical subtle nuances which are causing present day confusion. It was Lewis S. Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, not Miles Stanford, who proposed a "2 New Covenants"—one for Israel and one for the Church. Walvoord and Ryrie initially followed that view, but abandoned it in the late 20th century. The Progressives made a big deal out of this abandonment.

Listen carefully to Chafer: “There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a “new covenant.” It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two covenants—one for Israel and one for the Church—are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God’s purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church.”

Stanford's "two covenant" view was always Single Covenant Israel Only (“SCIO”) together with the Eternal Covenant between the Father and Son of Hebrews 13: 20-21. This he got from William R. Newell, who likely got it from Darby, but I'm not sure. There is nothing incompatible between SCIO and the identification teaching clearly brought out by Miles Stanford.

Darby held to SCIO,...BUT...being Darby he used difficult and ambiguous language which unfortunately suggested that the Church was receiving "spiritual blessing" from SCIO. But that wasn't what Darby was attempting to communicate. What he meant, and clarified elsewhere, was that the Church's spiritual blessing were SIMILAR, in part, to the blessings that Israel would receive under their New Covenant in the future Millennium.

Roy Huebner attempted to clarify, but Miles Stanford (who was trapped in the Scofield system and thereby crippled) made the mistake of wrongly fingering Darby for the breach. In Stanford's polemic paper Progressive's Kingdom Church (not included in his book Pauline Dispensationalism) he wrote about Americanized dispensationalism:

"CLASSIC (TRADITIONAL) DISPENSATIONALISM -- From its inception, all the way back to Darby, Classic Dispensationalism:

1) Broke the scriptural barrier separating Israel and the Church by linking Israel's New Covenant 'spiritual' blessings with the Church.

2) Made OT prophecy to include the Church, thereby eliminating the mystery.

3) No longer viewed Paul as the initial, and primary, source of Church truth.

Dr. John R. Master, The New Covenant, ISSUES IN DISPENSATIONALISM, 1994, Moody Press.

Are Christians Under Any "New Covenant"?

WITHCHRIST.ORG